Category: Movies

Themroc

It might have occurred to you that I have a tendency to accumulate a backlog of blog postings to write and then write like 4 all at once. For me, there are movie watching days and there are movie blogging days. Today is definitely a film watching day, but I did my best to turn it into a blogging day as well.

“Themroc” is one of these obscure films that I would never have heard of if it wasn’t for the recommendation of somebody else. In this case, 312 mentioned it to me while we were talking about restaurants in Berlin. It totally blows my mind why anybody would want to name their restaurant after “Themroc”, it’s a perfectly unappetizing movie.

There is something strangely erotic about naked bodies in French movies. For some reason, even when they are not perfect, they look exciting but there always is some odd fakeness to it. The ultimate eroticism is still the Spanish language, it sounds and looks genuine even when it is fake. Maybe this is an odd relationship I have with the neighboring languages which I sort of understand (English, French, Spanish, Italian), but it’s reflected in how I perceive movies.

Before I started watching “Themroc”, I had no idea that the film has no discernible dialogue. In fact, I have been trying to find subtitles for it to no avail. Silly me. Instead, people brabble some unintelligible quasi-French and the main character mostly moans and screams. This makes the audience focus on how things are said, how people look like, and shows that so many things can be shown without any specific words. You want to sleep with a woman? Just grab her boobies. Quite an interesting concept.
Apart from that, the film wasn’t really anything special to look at, and due to the lack of dialogue I personally found it hard to follow. The cuts were well-made and the rough esthetics of the film definitely fit its concept. It’s also not hard to see the crazy 68-ness of the time the film was made in and the social criticism it comes with. I have sympathy for authority-hating anarchy in film, and this one is an especially unusual kind. It has a multitude of known French actors in it, including Patrick Dewaere and Miou-Miou, so maybe that is another thing to go for.

“Themroc” is the totally kind of strange film which fails at the box office and then becomes a cult film for no apparent reason except that it really is just very, very strange. It also has everything in it: Incest, murder (of policemen!), group sex, only actual sexual perversions are missing. It’s worth a look purely out of curiosity, and perhaps a little more as well.

PS. Currently, I am also in the process of figuring out what I actually want to do with my tablet, except for reading papers and books. I might be try to figure out how to put movies onto the tablet as well, and download a drawing tool.

Design for Living

Many years ago, all I saw by Lubitsch was “Ninotchka” and “To be or not to be”. By that time already, I declared Lubitsch to be one of my favorite directors, even though with two films, he was way, way in the back in my Directors list. Now that the list has grown to 9 films, I can finally put him next to Godard and Truffaut, the only other two directors I have seen so many films of (with the exception of my favorites of course, who I do not count in this list anymore).

For me, Lubitsch is a little miracle. He never does anything openly smart and is not afraid of actually making films which are a little silly. In fact, when it comes to light-hearted humor, I don’t think there is anybody comparable. Most of the times we like movies because they transport some sophisticated message or because they give an interesting perspective to observing their time. Lubitsch makes a nazi comedy in the middle of the Second World War, and a bohemian love comedy with artists who have nothing to worry about in the middle of the Depression. He never says anything really smart nor is anyone of his films moralistic in any sense. Most of his movies are boudoir comedies or feel-good movies on friendship and love. If he does anything political, he makes fairly naive fun of it. But I could not care less. Lubitsch films are hilarious, his characters are even more human when they do not have to subject themselves to tedious political environments, and I cannot think of anybody who has mastered the humorous interaction between people so perfectly as Lubitsch.

“Design for Living” didn’t impress me as much as “Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife” nor “Trouble in Paradise”, but it was still very, very enjoyable. There are people, mostly annoying critics without any joy in life, who find Lubitsch’s humor too slapstick Jewish. Of course I don’t think so at all, and I don’t even know why this blog post reads as if I am trying to defend him here. Lubitsch shouldn’t need any defense.

Interestingly enough, I think that Miriam Hopkins was perfectly believable as the charming little lady who makes men turn their life upside down for her. In “Trouble in Paradise”, she had the unlucky role of being the neglected girlfriend and only appeared in 1-2 good scenes, but in this film she was able to shine. It also seems I don’t feel so affected by triangle love stories anymore, since I couldn’t take “Design for Living” seriously. (I need to rewatch “Jules et Jim” to check this proposition.) Most of the time, the characters were in quite a pinch, but that didn’t keep me up from laughing whenever they said something funny. Instead, when they suffered it looked like life is so much fun nevertheless so it couldn’t possibly be that bad. In a Lubitsch film, any complicated situation can be lightened up with a funny line. Amazing.

Back in the day, I thought Lubitsch made so many movies that I will never be able to see them all. I am approaching that goal at a slow pace, but one day it will come, I am sure.

Mein Führer

I read later on that Helge Schneider was unhappy about how his role as Hitler became smaller and the Jewish part grew larger. Perhaps that is the case, but the story might not have been as suspenseful if the Jewish family hadn’t been so afraid – at least that is how I see it.

Strangely enough, I have never really heard of the film except for seeing some film posters. Nobody also seems to really care about it, although I know quite a few people who are fans of Helge Schneider. Why is that? I usually try to not see films about Hitler because I am afraid they would turn out bad or silly, but maybe this is German mass media brainwashing me. So far, I have actually always liked films such as “Der Untergang” or even “Inglorious Basterds”, and I don’t even want to bother reading because these articles they are way, way too concerned with the “moral integrity” of the film, just like they were for “John Rabe”.

“Mein Führer” is funny, it has my favorite German actor in it (yay Ulrich Mühe) and that’s all I needed. The fact that I had no idea how the story would turn out made it entertaining and suspenseful at the same time. I couldn’t care about historical revisionism and decided to take the film as a typical Dani Levy. The Jewish humor in the film felt a lot like “Alles auf Zucker” and I think that is one of its strong parts.

I would never have expected myself to say this, but it was great to have seen “Mein Führer”. If you liked “Alles auf Zucker” you’d like this one as well, and vice-versa.

Toy Story 3

If you have ever been wondering – I never watched “Toy Story” nor “Toy Story 2”. In fact, I have not been planning on doing that, although I am strongly considering it now. Back in the day, when “Toy Story” just came out, I didn’t like its computerized style and thought that the toys looked pretty ugly. At the time, I wanted beautifully hand-drawn Disney movies, most preferably with pretty and smart princesses like Belle in Beauty and the Beast. After “Monster Inc.”, “Ice Age”, “Wall-E” and “Up” I have now definitely revised my opinion on computer animation, but “Toy Story” remained a bastion of ugliness in my eyes.

However, “Shrek” is ugly too which means that a good story can make up for everything. “Toy Story 3” is surprisingly good a third instalment of a successful franchise. The story is funny, very suspenseful and even had quite a lot of touching moments during which you realize how much you ended up caring for all these characters. Of course the evil characters were mostly boring, but what can you expect from a children’s film?

Animated movies are best in a movie theatre, and since I am more into cats than I probably have ever been into toys my whole life (I do not have a favorite toy except Lego and, uh, pistols) it is no surprise that I enjoyed “Puss in Boots” more, which came with 3D glory and cute facial expressions. But “Toy Story 3” is definitely proof that not all sequels must be bad – and that computer animated movies can be very promising. Nevertheless, I think that I will have my children watch “Snow White” and “Cinderella” before I show them “Wall-E”.

Make Way for Tomorrow

Many years ago, I saw “Grave of the Fireflies” with my parents and then vowed to never see the film ever again. In retrospect, I think I don’t even really like the film – it was just over the top tragic and victimizes the Japanese in a manner I do not quite approve of (very much unlike “Letters from Iwo Jima” which I wholeheartedly approved of). “Grave of the Fireflies” feels a little bit like this article I saw quite awhile ago in which reporters described how both Israeli and Palestinians are using pictures of killed children to prove how cruel the other side is. It’s just unnecessarily sad.

I should also vow to never see “Make way for tomorrow” again because it is so, so sad! But in reality, I think that the film is too precious to never see again. None of Ozu’s movies contain even a fraction of the truth that McCarey’s transports – and we are talking about Ozu, the master of “youngsters are all impolite and worthless“ stories. While I found “Tokyo Monogatari” highly annoying, I absolutely loved this film. I don’t think it has a single weakness, except perhaps that it is very one-sided in how it focuses on only a single couple. But for “Make way for tomorrow”, that is definitely a strong point. Orson Welles said “it would make a stone cry”, some Imdb commenter (who usually don’t have that much interesting to say) wrote “Romeo and Juliet are nothing compared to Pa and Ma Cooper”. I agree – this is probably the most beautiful and absolutely most tragic love story of all times, and it is even more powerful to see that the protagonists of this love story are not young and beautiful, but just… human.

Sadly enough, the film is perfectly realistic. I have seen plenty of other people act like the children in this film, and among the people I know – parents of friends, or friends of my parents – only a small handful are actually truly taking care of their parents. I want to be prepared to do better in case my parents ever got into a situation like this.

Bottom line: I don’t think I have ever seen a more tragic film in my life. I want to make everybody I know watch the film (except Gorp of course, who recommended it to me). It’s just so great and sad.

Trouble in Paradise

I am not actually complaining that there are none of them, but considering that you can turn western or film noir/gangster movies into a genre, in theory you could totally do that with thieves. It’s a similar pattern – the characters are outlaws and their stories could be funny or tragic, and some of my most memorable film experiences were with such films. One of them was the best Chinese movie I have ever seen on an airplane, Yesterday Once More. Maybe my impression of it would be different if I saw the film today, but back in the day, I absolutely loved it. This film definitely needs a second viewing, so I should try to find out how to get my hands on it.

“Trouble in Paradise” is strangely similar to that story, except it involves a third woman, making it one of the unusual love triangles in screwball comedy. I don’t think I enjoyed the film as much as “Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife” which made me laugh even more often, but that doesn’t mean that “Trouble in Paradise” did not meet my expectations. On the contrary, I felt the same fuzzy lightness and happiness as I do with literally every other great Lubitsch comedy. Lubitsch’s movies make me feel like life is immensely rich and enjoyable, that this feeling is the reason why I started watching movies in the first place.

Wikipedia qualifies the film as “pre-Code”. After reading what the Code entails, I am surprised to see so many elements in “Trouble in Paradise” – some socio-political criticism towards the rich, some gangsters and a lot of sex. A triangle love story only interesting if there is enough sexual investment involved, and this film shows plenty of it even without all that many actual kissing, let alone sex scenes. This is a bedroom comedy, but people get interrupted in their bedroom activities. Considering that Lubitsch loves these “rich people” and their frivolous love stories”, which I find somewhat reminiscent of Händel’s “Agrippina”, one of my favorite love comedies in opera, I think that there is a lot of truth in them. I enjoy the funny scenes even more when I can actually relate to the characters, and when I feel like they are realistic in some way. “Trouble in Paradise” definitely is even if nobody I know is a thief, and nobody I know (very well) is that rich.

Another thing I really liked about this film was its cast. I have never seen Miriam Hopkins before (though I am looking forward to seeing her in “Design for Living”, assuming that she will have a better role there) and loved Kay Francis as Madame Colet. She has a slightly strange look on her face, but it’s perhaps the acting that turns her into this attractive woman in every sense. Sexual innuendo lingers in every scene she is, even with those men who she doesn’t want to be with. Herbert Marshall’s Gaston was amusing but nothing out of the ordinary. It is definitely the women (and by the way, the side characters) who shine here.

“Trouble in Paradise” is a must-see for every Lubitsch fan, and I had a hard time comparing it to “Ninotchka” – they are just so different and I loved them both. Whenever I will come around it, I will probably see “Design for Living” next.

PS. The advisor has recently written something about writing scientific papers, and the example he uses is Hemingway. Specifically he says that one should not use commas, dedicate only one idea to only one sentence and not repeat yourself. As much as I love Hemingway, I also love Thomas Mann so I am not actually sure whether it is truly a good idea to write like Hemingway. There is a reason why language has given us the opportunity to write convoluted sentences, but it needs a master like Thomas Mann to make it readable. On the other hand, it takes a master like Hemingway to make a very bare style beautiful. So I guess you guys have to deal with my never-changing convoluted style.

Puss in Boots

I have not been to a 3D movie ever since “Alice in Wonderland”, which was quite a disappointment. What I do remember is the fact that these glasses never stay on my nose properly, even when I do not put them above my normal glasses. They slip horrible at the slightest moment. But, it works fine enough if I hold the glasses and/or do not move around too much and doesn’t detract from the movie too much.

Before the film, they showed a bunch of previews – “Hugo”, “Happy Feet Two”, “Tintin”, this Dr. Seuss movie and something really odd by Sony. Apparently you have the choice between quasi-orphan goes onto big adventure with lots of action or strange character design. They all seem like style over substance, but a lot of fun. As for “Puss in Boots” I thought it was quite wonderful to see in 3D. Unlike “Alice in Wonderland”, there were a lot of scenes which were enhanced by 3D and contributed to the experience. People jumped back and forth, and the whole story had a great number of action scenes which I thought were exciting and entertaining.

The greatest hit of the movie was definitely the dance scene: It had carefully designed, different cats playing instruments and an awesome dance. Again, 3D made all those swift camera moves and the crazy dance choreography a feast for the eyes. I am a cat and dance person (oh gosh I can’t wait to play Just Dance 3 again), and on top of that, I absolutely loved the 3 magic beans fairytale from my childhood, so the movie wins many points for me which it might not actually deserve. How can I possibly judge a film when it’s full of cute cats?

I am also glad that the film had none of the Shrek character and completely focused on Puss in Boots, arguably the most beloved character of the franchise. While the Shrek movies became a little silly at times, Puss’s story might be generic, but nevertheless lovely, and as long as I enjoyed the experience of this 3D showing, I will not complain. Otherwise, the film is probably forgettable.

Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife

For all of those who have always wondered what the tagline of this blog is – Wilder had a sign on his door, which said “How would Lubitsch do it?” If I wanted to make a movie today, I’d probably ask myself the same thing about Wilder – he was the more versatile of the two and was great at very different genres, he had (as far as I could have seen) a better grasp of actors than Lubitsch did, and ultimately was more successful than Lubitsch. But strangely enough, the latter produced so many more movies I liked. There is a reason why Lubitsch is the only director with 2 movies among my all-time favorites, and that certainly does not mean he only had two brilliant movies. Recently, when I saw “The Philadelphia Story”, I was seriously worried that I might have become bored and tired of the screwball genre. After “Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife”, I know that this is certainly not the case.

I read awhile ago that Claudette Colbert was very cunning and strong-willed when it comes to getting what she wants from the movie bosses. To me it seems that it is perfectly reflected in this film – she is something like the perfect woman here. Smart, perfectly attractive and at all times stronger than the guy, she’s a whirlwind like Katharine Hepburn in “Bringing up baby” but without being so annoying at first. I thought it was pretty obvious that she has set her eyes on the guy she wanted ever since the first second, and when she realized that he might be easy to get but hard to keep, she faces the challenge and takes her sympathetic schemes up a notch. I don’t think you usually see a woman “playing” a guy throughout half of a movie, and it naturally begs the question how appropriate it is. It was very reminiscent of my favorite part of “Ai Monogatari”, story number 5 in which the woman gets her guy back by smiling when he breaks up with her, and crying the moment she leaves by train. In both cases, the woman succeeds by not showing her feeling at a specific time in order to make somebody desire her. Bottom line, they play hard to get. I have a hard time approving that (I don’t think feelings should ever be played with) but I cannot help but admire the capability of people who can do that with such rationality.

As it is so often with these screwball comedies, it’s not really the storyline that counts, nor the premise or what happens at the end. Screwball comedies are all about how to get to the destination, and “Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife” was a storm of enjoyment. I loved how much the film inherited aspects of the silent era, no doubt still very fresh in Lubitsch’s mind. Certainly the film was full of funny dialogue, but there were enough scenes in which just actions were enough to make me laugh, such as the one in which the husband reads “The Taming of the Shrew”, unsuccessfully trying to adapt the play’s ideas to real life. Obviously this is not how you get a woman to love you, tsk tsk, Shakespeare is all but vain male fantasies. Besides a pleasant focus on people’s facial expressions and general gestures, the film uses music in a wonderful fashion. I was heavily impressed at how greatly the background music matched to the specific scene, especially the parts with the wedding music – first played in a happy, then in a sombre manner. Pure comedic gold. I don’t remember any other movie in which the music made me want to laugh.

Watching one Lubitsch film totally made me want to see more, especially now that it restored my faith in old comedies. (How could I have ever doubted them?) It’s too bad that most of them are rather hard to get.

The Women

Wow, my blogging backlog has become huge now. Considering that I spend at least half an hour writing these postings (though there is a great variation in that, sometimes it’s more like 10 minutes, sometimes it’s as much as over an hour), it’s like having two hours of work backlogged! Well, this is not truly work, so I shouldn’t perceive it that way. And it is more relaxing than e-mails, of which I also have a significant number backlogged.

The backlog all started with “The Women”, because after watching the film, I felt an incredibly strong desire to, well, see other films. To some degree, “The Women” was the perfect appetizer. It was good but not too good, and the film left so much to desire. I am determined not to enter the typical bashing of the film, usually performed by people who saw the original 1939 film and cannot stop complaining about how much inferior this version is. Certainly it is, but that’s not all. It’s been a little while since I saw the 1939 version, so I feel confident that I am now able to see this version for itself.

On Imdb, the only person who does not compare the film to the original has a complaint about something valid: The moral of the story seems to be “Do whatever you like, don’t care about others and everybody will love you”. That is pretty much exactly what’s happening in the film, and it annoyed that person just as well as me. Bottom line: It’s not a particularly great film and has some major weaknesses -aforementioned questionable morals, an unbearable clothing style (are the women in the story all 50 or what?) and this amazingly painful scene which must take place in every chick flick nowadays: the two main characters’ tearful girl friendship reunion. Nevertheless, the movie is much better than your average chick flick. The story is engaging, the actors are all pretty good (except for that damn daughter) and most of it is actually quite funny! I think there are two types of chick flicks: Those with romance and those with girl friendships (such as Sex and the City). For a girl friendship chick flick like this, it’s quite an accomplishment when I am not trying to bang my head against a wall.

I actually thought Eva Mendes is quite well cast for the film. Certainly she is no Joan Crawford but her apparent sex appeal compared to the main character was made pretty obvious. Sadly Meg Ryan was totally no match against her in their confrontation, but she had her own nice transformation, which I enjoyed. One of the smartest scenes in the film was the one in which Meg Ryan’s character talks to her mother. There was a scene like that in the original film, but I don’t recall it making such an impact. The way she described how betrayal feels was something quite unexpected, it was the big moment of ‘truth’ of the film.

Ultimately, I watched the film because I am a fan of the 1939 version of “The Women”, the truly memorable version. But it wasn’t all that bad and, in my opinion, doesn’t deserve the bad reviews. After all, the film was quite a box office success, and I feel critics and complainers just cannot appreciate good entertainment sometimes.